Would you accept having your bank account checked?

1…457910…15

Comments

  • 2oldcodgers
    2oldcodgers Posts: 739 Connected
    judie said:
    😆 I am in poverty! I don't object to random checks to check for fraud, that is the power the DWP already possess. I object to being discriminated against because of my disability by being monitored monthly. Fraud exists in the wider world, as has been pointed out several times, so why isn't everyone's bank account checked monthly for suspicious activity? It is still taking tax payer money from the treasury which is your objection as I understand it 
    It has nothing to do with disability. It's more a case of checking those that claim a means tested benefit. Whether you are disabled or not.
    It will only involve those who claim such benefits. Earning your own money is totally different.
    I have in the past been through such an investigation whilst claiming Pension Credit. I failed to inform the DWP over a period of a few years every time one of my 5 private pensions were increased. It simply didn't dawn on me as I believed that the info would be held by the DWP via HMRC.
    I had to supply 5 years of bank statements for all of our bank accounts (x4). I had to explain where and why I had spent money and where extra money that was deposited came from.
    I now send copies on a monthly basis of all 4 accounts to the DWP giving details of one off items of expense and credits.
    So I comply in this way which is exactly what the DWP would want others who claim a means tested benefit.
  • Jimm_Alumni
    Jimm_Alumni Scope alumni Posts: 5,717 Championing
    edited November 2023
    Bankruptcy is very different to just living. Bankruptcy means there are other people involved who will now likely see no return of their money, culpability in how you become bankrupt needs to be determined to gather how to proceed.

    This is very, very different from benefits. I find it a little unscrupulous compare the two frankly. The government should have no say in what is right or wrong to spend. This is insanely authoritarian.

    It is to help with the extra costs of living that come with having a disability. Such as the extra costs of going on holiday. The extra costs of travel. The extra costs of enjoying a hobby. The extra supplies you may need. It's an incredibly broad definition on purpose. Because the extra costs of being disabled can come from anywhere.

    The DWP had a reason to investigate you it seems, that does not mean they should be freely allowed access to see anyone's accounts without suspicion. You do not have to supply them with all that information, but you do willingly, that's your choice. It is not a choice that should be enforced on everyone.
  • 2oldcodgers
    2oldcodgers Posts: 739 Connected
    poppy123456 said:
    Umm no, they do not! it's not their business what anyone spends their income on, regardless of whether it's benefits or earned income.
    Maybe not but the powers that are invested in both HMRC and the Insolvency Dept already exist. What then is the objection of giving the same powers to all government departments?
    Or are you suggesting that those powers already in place should be curtailed?

  • 2oldcodgers
    2oldcodgers Posts: 739 Connected
    Jimm_Scope said:
    I see the logic behind the government checking for fraud (a), though I disagree with this method. I cannot see why the government should ever know how you are spending the money (b). It is not up to them to decide what is right or wrong. It's very dystopian and invasive. The government often loses data (they don't pay very well for cybersecurity specialists like the private sector does, which costs them more in the long run), the government can even send the data to third parties (even without knowing themselves, see recent issues with the NHS contracting Meta for certain online tools without realising they were sharing medical records).

    And most importantly, why should they know? That's incredibly invasive. Shall I next be mandated what food I can eat? If I buy tofu will I now be a part of the "tofu-eating wokerati" according to the Home Office Secretary and be deemed I need to be more closely watched by other governmental bodies?

    It's harder to take away such access to your data once they have it. Can you trust every single future government to agree with you on what is "right" to spend money on? Can you trust every single future government to not mishandle the data?
    Putting up that argument and statement only goes to strengthen the thought that the DWP might have when reviewing your affairs in more detail.
    He that doth protest.......
  • 2oldcodgers
    2oldcodgers Posts: 739 Connected
    It is speculation but mission creep already exists elsewhere. 
    Why object when it only make you sound guilty and have things to hide?

  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 64,463 Championing
    edited November 2023
    2oldcodgers said:
    Wibbles said:
    Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is extra money to help you with everyday life if you've an illness, disability or mental health condition. 
    So who decides what that actually means? 
    No it's not given to you to help with every day life. It's an amount that is to be used to cover the extra costs that occur due to the disability. 
    There’s no law what you can and can’t spend any benefits money on and this includes disability benefits. The only person that’s got the wrong idea here is you. Not everyone has extra costs because they are disabled but this doesn’t mean they are not entitled to disability benefits. 

    2oldcodgers said:
    poppy123456 said:
    Umm no, they do not! it's not their business what anyone spends their income on, regardless of whether it's benefits or earned income.
    Maybe not but the powers that are invested in both HMRC and the Insolvency Dept already exist. What then is the objection of giving the same powers to all government departments?
    Or are you suggesting that those powers already in place should be curtailed?

    I haven’t suggested anything of the sort! 

    I have no idea what HMRC and debt have to do with this but while we are on the subject of debt, for those claiming Universal Credit, paying off debt with any savings is allowed and is not seen as deprivation of capital. It’s written in the UC regulations 2013. I’m sure you’re now going to find something wrong with that. 

    I stand by what I said, there’s no law on what you can and can’t spend any of your money on.

    With all due respect you are getting very annoying! 

  • Tonawanda17
    Tonawanda17 Online Community Member Posts: 177 Contributor
    When will the next election be?
  • MW123
    MW123 Scope Member Posts: 1,129 Championing
    edited November 2023

    @2oldcodgers It's essential to consider that objecting can be a way to protect one's rights, ensure a fair process, or maintain ethical standards. Making sweeping generalisations about the act of objecting may oversimplify complex situations and overlook the nuances involved. 

    Poppy, your insights on the suggested scrutiny of individuals' bank accounts are as usual accurate. What has been posted is just pure speculation. Yesterday, I shared a link indicating that these changes are not associated with monitoring individuals' spending habits in the UK. Instead, they are focused on addressing concerns related to fraud, criminal activities, and money laundering.

    I have copied and pasted my post yesterday below. 

    I am confident that even if the proposed legislation is enacted, Scope members will not face any adverse consequences. I see no evidence suggesting that every individual receiving Universal Credit will undergo monthly bank account checks.  For further clarification, please refer to this link directly from the government website.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fighting-fraud-in-the-welfare-system/fighting-fraud-in-the-welfare-system--2

  • 2oldcodgers
    2oldcodgers Posts: 739 Connected
    poppy123456 said:
    2oldcodgers said:

    Why object when it only make you sound guilty and have things to hide?

    What makes you think that? Just because someone disagrees with something it doesn’t mean they have something to hide. Seriously! 
    Well if someone continually argues against something and gives no valid legal reason for doing so makes themselves in my view, of having something to hide.
    If you were ever questioned by say the DWP, the Insolvency Service, HMRC or even the police and were considered to prevaricate then I know doubts, worries and disbelief would be at the forefront of those who are questioning.



  • 2oldcodgers
    2oldcodgers Posts: 739 Connected
    poppy123456 said:
    2oldcodgers said:
    Wibbles said:
    Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is extra money to help you with everyday life if you've an illness, disability or mental health condition. 
    So who decides what that actually means? 
    No it's not given to you to help with every day life. It's an amount that is to be used to cover the extra costs that occur due to the disability. 
    There’s no law what you can and can’t spend any benefits money on and this includes disability benefits. The only person that’s got the wrong idea here is you. Not everyone has extra costs because they are disabled but this doesn’t mean they are not entitled to disability benefits. 
    Not yet there isn't for the DWP but it is there for other departments. All that the government need do is to give all of the departments including the DWP the same powers that exist elsewhere.
    Not having the need for the awarded benefit is really for another day.
    I don't have any extra costs for my PIP Enhanced Care payment. Instead I help my children and grandchildren out knowing that they do have extra costs because of their disabilities. As for my Enhanced Mobility payment all of that goes towards the Motability car.
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 64,463 Championing
    edited November 2023
    2oldcodgers said:
    poppy123456 said:
    2oldcodgers said:

    Why object when it only make you sound guilty and have things to hide?

    What makes you think that? Just because someone disagrees with something it doesn’t mean they have something to hide. Seriously! 
    Well if someone continually argues against something and gives no valid legal reason for doing so makes themselves in my view, of having something to hide.


    Oh give over, all you do is scare people, which you seem to enjoy doing! Someone having an opinion doesn't mean they are hiding something.

    I'm out now and will not respond to any more of your comments on this thread.

  • Tonawanda17
    Tonawanda17 Online Community Member Posts: 177 Contributor
    Do we expect these powers to be up and running before the next election?
  • 2oldcodgers
    2oldcodgers Posts: 739 Connected
    Lou67 said:

    I think it’s shocking what you just said to @Jimm_Scope
    It  always comes across that you seem to enjoy annoying people.
    This is my opinion and I’m entitled to it. 
    Unfortunately my training in 40+ years of investigating for both what was the Inspector of Taxes and subsequently the Insolvency Service, proved beyond doubt that it was safer to trust no one.
    I personally found that if anybody argued against why I was asking very searching questions as to their income and their spending it was worth going deeper.
    I must admit that it took 5 years or so after retirement to come to the conclusion that not everyone who I talked to was a compulsive liar.  
  • Tonawanda17
    Tonawanda17 Online Community Member Posts: 177 Contributor
    Do we expect these powers to be up and running before the next election?
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 64,463 Championing
    Tonawanda17 said:
    Do we expect these powers to be up and running before the next election?

    As has been advised several times, no one knows anything at the moment because it's all speculation. I realise it's causing anxiety to you but there's nothing anyone can tell you.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories